“If he acknowledges that he owes him a debt or a specific asset, and he remits or gives away part of it while retaining the remainder, it is valid, provided that neither party stipulated it and that the creditor is not among those whose voluntary dispositions are invalid.”

His statement, “If he acknowledges that he owes him a debt,” means that he says, “I owe you one thousand riyals.”

His statement, “or a specific asset,” means that he says, “This recorder is yours.”

His statement, “he remits,” refers to the debt.

His statement, “or gives away,” refers to the specific asset. This is an example of ordered pairing and exposition: two things are mentioned, then their respective rulings are mentioned in the same order. The first is thus connected to the first, and the second to the second. An example is Allah’s saying:

“Among them are the wretched and the blessed. As for the wretched, they will be in the Fire, where they will sigh and wail, remaining there as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills. Indeed, your Lord is Doer of whatever He wills. And as for the blessed, they will be in Paradise.” [Hud]

This is called ordered pairing and exposition.

There is also unordered pairing and exposition, in which what relates to the second is mentioned first, followed by what relates to the first. Allah says:

“On the Day when some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces have turned black...” [Al ‘Imran: 106]

This is unordered pairing and exposition.

All of these are rhetorical devices. Every departure from the normal order must serve a purpose; otherwise, the norm is for the pairing and exposition to be ordered.

His statement, “he remits or gives away part of it while retaining the remainder, it is valid,” means that when he acknowledges owing him one hundred riyals, he says, “I remit fifty riyals from you.” This is valid, because it is a pure discharge of liability, an act of kindness, and something encouraged. Yet it may be asked: what does this have to do with settlement? Was there any dispute requiring a settlement?

The answer is that the jurists say that if this were expressed using the wording of settlement, it would not be valid. This is why it is included in the chapter on settlement. Thus, if the owner of the right says to the one who acknowledged it, “I have settled with you for part of the debt,” they say that it is not valid, because it does not